Logic

Symbols Made Simple

A quick and friendly introduction to symbolic logic by Stephen Szanto.

Most non-professional philosophers are deterred from attending lectures and reading books by academics
who use symbolic logic. Some even claim it is an elitist attempt to make presentations deliberately inaccessible
to the uninitiated. In any case, I believe it is worth studying and needn’t be a scary as it at
first looks. I hope this ‘child’s guide’ to modern philosophical formalism will provide
a bridge between these two groups of philosophers.

The two most intimidating symbols are ‘∃’, standing for ‘one’ or ‘some’ or ‘somebody’,
and ‘∀’, standing for ‘all’ or ‘every’ or ‘everybody’.
They were designed by the Italian mathematician and logician Giuseppe Peano (1858-1912) and they are
usually combined with another letter or letters which stand for the statement of our choice. Don’t
panic, here is an example:

(∀x) (∃y) (y causes x)

This means “for all x there exists a y such that y causes x,” or, to put it in more everyday
terms, “everything has a cause.” Which is a true statement, if we forget about quantum mechanics
which has no bearing on our logic in an everyday sense. ∃ and ∀ are called ‘quantifiers’;
∃ the existential quantifier and ∀ the universal quantifier. Let’s now change
the order of the quantifiers and we get:

(∃y) (∀x) (y causes x)

This means “there is one y such that for all x, y causes x,” or, more simply put, “there
is one cause for everything.” This is considered false by atheistic humanists and materialists,
but is passionately declared true by monotheistic devotees, who believe in one God as the maker and cause
of the universe. However, if we restrict the statement to nature alone without bringing in metaphysical
concepts of theology, we can say that the second proposition is false. For this reason, the illusion
that we can reverse the quantifiers in a true statement and end up with another true statement is called
the Quantifier Shift Fallacy. Even before we used philosophical symbols this type of fallacy was known
to philosophers and theologians. The great Aristotle himself was accused of having committed it at the
beginning of his Nicomachean Ethicsas was the equally great Thomas Aquinas whose argument from
causation is also held to be fallacious in this way.

“Hah”, I can hear you exclaiming, “So if all this could be done without those confusing
symbols, what’s their use then?” “Well,” the formalists would say in defence
of their abbreviated symbolic expressions, “isn’t it simpler, neater and more elegant to
express our arguments in this concise way than scribbling pages and pages of convoluted arguments?”

The philosopher Immanuel Kant hated his contemporary psychiatrists (whose introspective experiments
he regarded as philosophically untenable) so much that he wanted philosophers to attend court cases instead
of the experts in the field. One can only imagine how much he would have loved to translate large volumes
of psychiatric wisdom on the paranoid personality type who thinks that everybody hates him – but
whose paranoia actually stems from his unconscious hatred of everybody else – into the following
two elegant formulations:

(∀x) (∃y) (x hates y)

meaning “everybody hates me” and

(∃x) (∀y) (x hates y)

meaning “I hate everybody”, which is the cause of the person’s psychiatric problem.
Unfortunately in Kant’s time such elegant symbolic formulations had not been invented. I hope you
realised that this is another example of the Quantifier Shift Fallacy.

“Yes, yes,” you moan sadly, “but I turned to philosophy to find out what it
is all about. Can symbolic logic help me with this?” Well, Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein,
in his earlier ‘phase’, as well as the recently deceased Quine and several other outstanding
contemporary philosophers think that the answer is ‘yes’. By introducing this strict new
logical language we can learn a great deal about the world as it really is. To make this more tangible,
let me quote a widely-known example. For a long time mankind was aware of the morning star and
the evening star and regarded them as two different bright heavenly bodies. They were mysterious
and many stories were attached to them. Then astronomers discovered that they were just one star, the
planet Venus. Similarly, with the help of formal logic, some modern philosophers hope to purge our language
of obscurity and confusion and show the world in its stark reality.

On the other side more and more equally brilliant thinkers claim that this enterprise has failed
and is ‘dead’. Whatever the case, the enterprise is an outstanding achievement in the history
of philosophy, and it is well worth the effort to form at least an intuitive insight of its essence.
This brief introduction was meant to give you some confidence that it can be understood ‘without
tears’ and perhaps also to whet your appetite.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy. X